Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Again: pretty PLEASE, stop talking about thouse mysterious "silent > corruption/errors". Errors gets detected. You confuse them here with failures (which probably get detected, but then who can say!). An error occurs when you do a sum on paper and you forget to carry one in the third column. In colloquial terms, it's a "mistake". Life carries on. A failure occurs when your brain explodes and CNN comes round and interviews your next door neignbour about the hole in their wall. > It is *very* unlikely > case when an error on disk (either unability to read, or reading > the "wrong" (aka not the same as has been written) data) will not > be detected during read. It's practically certain that it won't be "detected", because it is on disk as far as anyone and anything can tell - there would have been a failure if that were not the case. It's an ordinary datum. > , and if you do care about that cases, you > have to use some very different hardware with every component > (CPU, memory, buses, controllers etc etc) at least tripled, with > hardware-level online monitoring/comparing stuff to detect errors No, that detects errors internally (and corrects them, or else it produces "failures" that are externally visible in place of them, or else it doesn't detect them and the errors are also externally visible). > at any level and to switch to another component if one is "lying". It still leaves the errors. I don't know why everyone has such semantic problems with this! Think of an error as a "bug". You catch those bugs you can see, and don't catch the bugs you can't see. There are always bugs you can't see (hey!, if you saw them you would correct them, right? Or at least die die die). It is simply a classification. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
