Some RAID storage might do it, potentially more efficiently!! Rhetorical question - Does Cassandra's architecture of reconciling reads over multiple copies of the same data provide an even more interesting answer? I submit - YES!
All bitrot protection mechanisms involve some element of redundant storage - to verify and reconstruct any rot. Cassandra can do this on JBODs with the appropriate Replication Factor (say > 3). Granted that the total storage in terms of number of disks might exceed the other alternatives, but at the lowest tier, using JBODs, the cost might actually be lesser. Food for thought, or wild imagination ? -JA On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Schuller <peter.schul...@infidyne.com>wrote: > > Our application space is such that there is data that might not be read > for > > a long time. The data is mostly immutable. How should I approach > > detecting/solving the bitrot problem? One approach is read data and let > read > > repair do the detection, but given the size of data, that does not look > very > > efficient. > > Note that read-repair is not really intended to repair arbitrary > corruptions. Unless I'm mistaken, arbitrary corruption, unless it > triggers a serialization failure that causes row skipping, it's a > toss-up which version of the data is retained (or both, if the > corruption is in the key). Given the same key and column timestamp, > the tie breaker is the volumn value. So depending on whether > corruption results in a "lesser" or "greater" value, you might get the > corrupt or non-corrupt data. > > > Has anybody solved/workaround this or has any other suggestions to detect > > and fix bitrot? > > My feel/tentative opinion is that the clean fix is for Cassandra to > support strong checksumming at the sstable level. > > Deploying on e.g. ZFS would help a lot with this, but that's a problem > for deployment on Linux (which is the recommended platform for > Cassandra). > > -- > / Peter Schuller >
