Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 07:38:18 EST

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Subtle semantic issue with sleep callbacks in drivers"
Previous message: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo: "Re: Linux 2.5.69"
Next in thread: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Maybe reply: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> Besides the problem that most drive manufacturers now seem to use
> cheese as the data storage surface, I think there are some other
> problems:
>
> 1) I don't trust drive firmware.

I created crc loop method just for this.
Make it md5 loop method and you would
be able to trust that...
Pavel

-- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Subtle semantic issue with sleep callbacks in drivers"
Previous message: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo: "Re: Linux 2.5.69"
Next in thread: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Maybe reply: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST