On 09/24/2016 08:11 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 12:43 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: >> It's because you can't update the data and the checksum atomically >> -- at some point in the writing process, they must be inconsistent. >> This is considered a Bad Thing. > > It's not worse at all than simply not cheksuming... in both cases you > have no guarantee whether the data is bogus or not, but in with csums, > you can at least tell - only at the little cost, of false positives > when the data was fully and correctly written, but the csums not. > I think that the bigger cost is the lower performance due to the write of checksums. > > Cheers. > -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- 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
