I definitely hope btrfs has this per-object "copies" property too. However, simply replicating the whole contents of a directory, wastes too much disk space, as opposed to RS codes On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dnia 2008-07-19, sob o godzinie 17:18 +0200, Gerald Nowitzky pisze: > >> In the end, you would add very little security by the price of -at least- >> cutting half your write performance. Thus, I don't think there is any point >> in adding redundancy to single disk systems. > > ZFS can store multiple copies of data block within one disk. Using > your words, it's like "Intra-Disk-RAID1". After reading data, when > checksum shows it's corrupted, another copy (hopefully correct) is read > from other disk location. > This is adding security by the price of half storage capacity. Which > seems like a fair game, given todays 1,5TB HDDs. > > -- > Tomasz Torcz > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
