Anton B. Rang wrote:
> That brings up another interesting idea.
>
> ZFS currently uses a 128-bit checksum for blocks of up to 1048576 bits.
>
> If 20-odd bits of that were a Hamming code, you'd have something slightly
> stronger than SECDED, and ZFS could correct any single-bit errors encountered.
I suppose an error correcting code like 256bit Hamming or Reed-Solomon
can't substitute as reliable checksum on the level of default
Fletcher2/4? If it can, it could be offered as alternative algorithm
where necessary and let ZFS react accordingly, or not?
Regards,
-mg
On 12-août-08, at 08:
That brings up another interesting idea.
ZFS currently uses a 128-bit checksum for blocks of up to 1048576 bits.
If 20-odd bits of that were a Hamming code, you'd have something slightly
stronger than SECDED, and ZFS could correct any single-bit errors encountered.
This could be done without ch
