On 11/3/16 11:04 AM, L.A. Walsh wrote: > > > Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> As most users never have things go wrong, all they think is "CRCs >> are unnecessary overhead". It's just like backups - how many people >> don't make backups because they cost money right now and there's no >> tangible benefit until something goes wrong which almost never >> happens? > ---- > But it's not like backups. You can't run a util > program upon discovering bad CRC's that will fix the file system > because the file system is no longer usable. Sure you can - xfs_repair knows what to do in such a case. It's not guaranteed that you get /all/ your data back, in every corrupted fs situation, but that's not because of CRCs - a bad CRC is just the messenger about filesystem corruption. > That means you > have to restore from backup. Thus, for those keeping > backups, there is no benefit, as they'll have to restore > from backups in either case. Again, as Dave said, the format changes implemented for CRCS help us support XFS. It's not something /directly/ useful to the user, other than possibly stopping a corruption before it gets worse, by early detection. If you have a corruption which is so bad that you have to go to backups, that would be true with or without CRCs. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
