2011/1/31 Cláudio Martins <ctpm@xxxxxxxxxx>: > So, I do agree that, as Brian Chrisman pointed out, background scrub > is always important as it helps to prevent your data redundancy going > bad without you knowing about it. I also agree with that sys. admin. > notification is important in either case. > > But I also think that Ceph should try to correct the errors it finds > through scrub, because some of today's drives may throw uncorrected > errors even if they are still useful - I'd rather have more copies of > my data, even if they're slightly unrealiable, since I should always be > able to tell the bad ones by BTRFS checksums. Besides, I think this > model of always trying to correct errors fits well with Ceph's > goal of working with unrealiable, comodity hardware, so it makes no > sense to just bail out and force the operator to swap every flaky drive. I don't think scrub is ever going to go away. It can't do much to fix errors right now, and it can't be certain about correctness, but all these things can be added to it. It shouldn't be considered much more than a stub right now; that was certainly what we said when we wrote the code that exists right now. We will eventually add checksumming (so we can make sure that files of the same size have the same data, etc) and other features to make it more useful than it is right now. -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
