Re: relling's Oct 2 5:06 Post:

Re: analogy to ECC memory... 

I appreciate the support, but the ECC memory analogy does not hold water.  ECC 
memory is designed to correct for multiple independent events, such as 
electrical noise, bits flipped due to alpha particles from the DRAM package, or 
cosmic rays.  The probability of these independent events coinciding in time 
and space is very small indeed.  It works well.  

ZFS does purport to cover errors such as these in the crummy double layer 
boards wtihout sufficient decoupling, microcontrollers and memories without 
parity or ECC, etc. found in the cost-reduced to the razor's edge hardware most 
of us run on, but it also covers system level errors such as entire blocks 
being replaced, or large fractions of them being corrupted by high level bugs.  
With the current fletcher2 we have only a 50-50 chance of catching these 
multi-bit errors.  Probability of multiple bits being changed is not small, 
because the probabilities of the error mechanism effecting the 4096~1048576 
bits in the block are not independent.  Indeed, in many of the show-cased 
mechanisms, it is a sure bet - the entire disk sector is written with the wrong 
data, for sure!  Although there is a good chance that many of the bits in the 
sector happen to match, there is an excellent chance that many are different.  
And the mechanisms that caused these differences were not independent
 .  

Re: "AFAIK, no collisions have been found in SHA-256 digests for symbols of 
size 1,048,576, but it has not been proven that they do not exist"

For sure they exist.  I think 4096 of them, for every SHA256 digest, there are 
(I think) 4096 1,048,576 bit long blocks that will create it.  One hopes that 
the same properties that make SHA256 a good cryptographic hash also make it a 
good hash period.  This, I admit, is a leap of ignorance (At least I know what 
cliff I am leaping off of).

Regarding the question of what people have seen, I have seen lots of 
unexplained things happen, and by definition one never knows why.  I am not 
interested in seeing any more.  I see the potential for disaster, and my time, 
and the time of my group, is better spent doing other things.  That is why I 
moved to ZFS.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to