|
Le 19/03/2016 18:38, Heath Albritton a
écrit :
My impression is that the only protection against bitrot is provided by the underlying filesystem which means that you don't get any if you use XFS or EXT4. I can't trust Ceph on this alone until its bitrot protection (if any) is clearly documented. The situation is far from clear right now. The documentations states that deep scrubs are using checksums to validate data, but this is not good enough at least because we don't known what these checksums are supposed to cover (see below for another reason). There is even this howto by Sebastien Han about repairing a PG : http://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2015/04/27/ceph-manually-repair-object/ which clearly concludes that with only 2 replicas you can't reliably find out which object is corrupted with Ceph alone. If Ceph really stored checksums to verify all the objects it stores we could manually check which replica is valid. Even if deep scrubs would use checksums to verify data this would not be enough to protect against bitrot: there is a window between a corruption event and a deep scrub where the data on a primary can be returned to a client. BTRFS solves this problem by returning an IO error for any data read that doesn't match its checksum (or automatically rebuilds it if the allocation group is using RAID1/10/5/6). I've never seen this kind of behavior documented for Ceph. Lionel |
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
