Anton B. Rang wrote: > That brings up another interesting idea. > > ZFS currently uses a 128-bit checksum for blocks of up to 1048576 bits. > > If 20-odd bits of that were a Hamming code, you'd have something slightly > stronger than SECDED, and ZFS could correct any single-bit errors encountered. >
Yes. But I'm not convinced that we will see single bit errors, since there is already a large number of single-bit-error detection and (often) correction capability in modern systems. It seems that when we lose a block of data, we lose more than a single bit. It should be relatively easy to add code to the current protection schemes which will compare a bad block to a reconstructed, good block and deliver this information for us. I'll add an RFE. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
