On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:28:26AM -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bernd Schubert > <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I guess we should talk to developers of other parallel file systems and see > > what they think about it. I think cephfs already uses data integrity > > provided by btrfs, although I'm not entirely sure and need to check the > > code. As I said before, Lustre does network checksums already and *might* be > > interested. > > Actually, right now Ceph doesn't check btrfs' data integrity > information, but since Ceph doesn't have any data-at-rest integrity > verification it relies on btrfs if you want that. Integrating > integrity verification throughout the system is on our long-term to-do > list. > We too will be said if using a kernel-level integrity system requires > using DIO, although we could probably work out a way to do > "translation" between our own integrity checksums and the > btrfs-generated ones if we have to (thanks to replication). DIO isn't really required, but doing this without synchronous writes will get painful in a hurry. There's nothing wrong with letting the data sit in the page cache after the IO is done though. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
