On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 6:47pm -0500, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sigh... > > Well, I wrote up a preliminary version of dm-checksum and then > realized that I've pretty much just built a crappier version of > dm-dedupe, but without the dedupe part. Given that it stores > checksums in a btree which claims to be robust through failures and > gives us automatic deduplication, I wonder if it we could achieve our > aims by modifying dm-dedupe to verify the checksums on the read path? > > I guess it would be interesting to see how bad the performance hit is > with the online dedupe part enabled or disabled. dm-dedupe v2 went > out on the mailing list last August, which I missed. :( > > Unless... there's a specific reason nobody mentioned dm-dedupe here? As you may have seen in the dm-dedup thread, we need to actively review/test that target (if your initial review focus is on extending it to _optionally_ verify the checksums on the read path then so be it). See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-November/msg00114.html Specifically, the git branch that builds on v2 based on my initial review of v2: git://git.fsl.cs.stonybrook.edu/scm/git/linux-dmdedup branch: dm-dedup-devel Your help on getting dm-dedup upstream would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
