On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 02:12:56PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 2016-11-25 05:31, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > >>> Do you mean, read the corrupted data won't repair it? > >>> > >>> IIRC that's the designed behavior. > >> :O > >> > >> You are right... I was unaware of that.... > > This is correct. > > > > Ordinary reads shouldn't touch corrupt data, they should only read > > around it. Scrubs in read-write mode should write corrected data over > > the corrupt data. Read-only scrubs can only report errors without > > correcting them. > > > > Rewriting corrupt data outside of scrub (i.e. on every read) is a > > bad idea. Consider what happens if a RAM controller gets too hot: > > checksums start failing randomly, but the data on disk is still OK. > > If we tried to fix the bad data on every read, we'd probably just trash > > the filesystem in some cases. > > > > I cant agree. If the filesystem is mounted read-only this behavior may > be correct; bur in others cases I don't see any reason to not correct > wrong data even in the read case. If your ram is unreliable you have > big problem anyway. If you don't like RAM corruption, pick any other failure mode. Laptops have to deal with things like vibration and temperature extremes which produce the same results (spurious csum failures and IO errors under conditions where writing will only destroy data that would otherwise be recoverable). > The likelihood that the data contained in a disk is "corrupted" is > higher than the likelihood that the RAM is bad. > > BTW Btrfs in RAID1 mode corrects the data even in the read case. So Have you tested this? I think you'll find that it doesn't. > I am still convinced that is the RAID5/6 behavior "strange". > > BR > G.Baroncelli > -- > gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> > Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
