Am 23.12.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger <li...@xunil.at> wrote: >> >> got my first two demo nodes up and in-sync ... what a success ;-) > > I started to look into ceph, and my biggest issue is that they don't > protect against silent corruption. They do checksum data during > transit, but not at rest. That means that you could end up with 3 > different copies of a file and no way to know which one is the right > one. Simply storing the data on btrfs isn't enough - that will > protect against files changing on the disk itself, but you could STILL > end up with 3 different copies of a file on different nodes and no way > to know which one is right, if the error happens at a higher level > than the btrfs filesystem/disk.
but ... oh my. *sigh* I assume the devs there have a clever answer to this as well? At least for the future ... now that btrfs is declared stable at least for the more trivial setups (read: not RAID5/6) by Chris Mason himself ... btrfs should be usable for ceph-OSDs soon. In the other direction: what protects against these errors you mention? S
