On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Roman V. Shaposhnik <r...@sun.com> wrote: > I was specifically referring to a "normal operations" > to conjure an image of a typical setup of fossil+venti. > > In such a setup a corrupted block from a fossil > partition will go undetected and could end up > being stored in venti. At that point it will become > venti "problem". > >> i should have been more clear that venti does the >> checking. there are many things that fossil doesn't >> do that it should. > > Sure, but I can't really use venti without using > fossil (again: we are talking about a typical setup > here not something like vac/vacfs), can I? > > If I can NOT than fossil becomes a weak link that > can let corrupted data go undetected all the way > to a venti store.
Fossil has always been a weak link, and probably will always be until somebody replaces it. There was some idea of replacing it with a version of ken's fs that uses a venti backend... Venti's rock solid design is the only thing that makes fossil minimally tolerable despite its usual tendency of stepping on its hair and falling on his face. uriel > This is quite worrisome for me. At least compared to > ZFS it is. > > Thanks, > Roman.
