Bill Davidsen wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I got a private email a while ago from Thiemo Nagel claiming that some
of the conclusions in my RAID-6 paper was incorrect. This was
combined with a "proof" which was plain wrong, and could easily be
disproven using basic enthropy accounting (i.e. how much information
is around to play with.)
However, it did cause me to clarify the text portion a little bit. In
particular, *in practice* in may be possible to *probabilistically*
detect multidisk corruption. Probabilistic detection means that the
detection is not guaranteed, but it can be taken advantage of
opportunistically.
If this means that there can be no false positives for multidisk
corruption but may be false negatives, fine. If it means something else,
please restate one more time.
Pretty much. False negatives are quite serious, since they will imply a
course of action which will introduce further corruption.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
