On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:44:29PM +0100, C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Roland Smith <rsm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:08:33PM +0100, Svein Skogen (Listmail account) > > wrote: > >> But it's still not capable of true forward-error-correction. If we are > >> to embark upon creating a new solution, using something that is cheap > >> for "normal cases" but can still be used (albeit more expensively) for > >> error recovery would (imho) be better. Even if that means we get less > >> net storage out of the gross pool (it could perhaps be configurable?) > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "true forward-error-correction". But if you > > want > > to make _really sure_ that a spinning disk hasn't mangled the data you > > should: > > Maybe something like Reed-Solomon ECC in different blocks. > Should a data block go bad, it could be rebuilt on-the-fly from > those ECC blocks:
And how do you detect that a block has gone bad, other than reading back what you wrote and finding a difference? Because that would still be slow. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgpUlzPtH4rC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature