Paul Schlie <schlie(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Paul Schlie writes:
>>> - yes, if you're willing to compute true CRC's as opposed to simpler
>>> checksums, which may be worth the price if in fact many/most data
>>> check failures are truly caused by single bit errors somewhere in the
>> FWIW, not one of the corrupted-data problems I've investigated has ever
>> looked like a single-bit error. So the theoretical basis for using a
>> CRC here seems pretty weak. I doubt we'd even consider automatic repair
>> attempts anyway.
> - although I accept that you may be correct in your assessment that most
> errors are in fact multi-bit;
I've seen bad memory in a SCSI controller cause single-bit errors in storage.
It was quite confusing since the symptom was syntax errors in the C code we
were compiling on the server. The sysadmin actually caught it reliably
corrupting a block of source text written out and read back.
I've also seen single-bit errors caused by bad memory in a network interface.
*Twice*. Particularly nasty since the CRC on TCP/IP packets is only 16-bit so
a large enough ftp transfer would eventually finish despite the packet loss
but with the occasional bits flipped. In these days of SAN/NAS and SCSI over
IP that's pretty scary...
Several cases on list have come down to "filesystem secretly replaces entire
block of data with Folger's Crystals(tm) -- let's see if the database
notices". Any checksum would help in that case but I wouldn't discount single
bit errors either.
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2008-10-01 17:47:07|
|Subject: September CommitFest Closed|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-10-01 17:25:52|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks|