On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, at 5:49 PM, home user wrote:
> Checksums - If I understand that concept correctly, I would like to have > that. But for me, it is a nice-to-have, not something that I need. Well I suppose if data integrity isn't important that might be true. I see the problem reports though and silent data corruption does really happen, and the drives tend to not issue errors anymore on failed reads. They return garbage or zeros. Btrfs will catch this and prevent the corrupt data from being turned over to user space, instead EIO is issued. So at least corrupt data isn't being replicated into your backups. Whether your backups warn on EIO, it's up to the application. Metadata is a small target, maybe 5% of what's written. But file data is huge, it's the rest of what's written. Checksums apply to both on Btrfs, so that is why it's more likely to complain when there are problems. Because it's designed to detect them. Also what Meta told us early on about SSD failures is they tend to be preceded by transient corruption (garbage or zeros). Not even smart is reporting this. Btrfs is the first that will detect it. It's a good time to freshen the backups while there is a chance. -- Chris Murphy -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
