Re: Page Checksums

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM,  <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> wrote:
>> * Robert Treat:
>>
>>> Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't
>>> willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides
>>> checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
>>> off that will be asked for? Yes, it is unfair of course, but it's
>>> interesting how small the camp of those using checksummed filesystems
>>> is.
>>
>> Don't checksumming file systems currently come bundled with other
>> features you might not want (such as certain vendors)?
>
> I would chip in and say that I would prefer sticking to well-known proved
> filesystems like xfs/ext4 and let the application do the checksumming.
>

*shrug* You could use Illumos or BSD and you'd get generally vendor
free systems using ZFS, which I'd say offers more well-known and
proved checksumming than anything cooking in linux land, or than the
as-to-be-written yet checksumming in postgres.

> I dont forsee fully production-ready checksumming filesystems readily
> available in the standard Linux distributions within a near future.
>
> And yes, I would for sure turn such functionality on if it were present.
>

That's nice to say, but most people aren't willing to take a 50%
performance hit. Not saying what we end up with will be that bad, but
I've seen people get upset about performance hits much lower than
that.

Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com