3 ms·
> Naturally, there are information-theoretical limits to the number of corruptions that may occur for detection/correction to be guaranteed. To my practical p
by allendoerfer 10y ago
> Naturally, there are information-theoretical limits to the number of corruptions that may occur for detection/correction to be guaranteed.
To my practical point: Does it tell me, when it approaches that limit or do I have to put in more maintenance? Can it be fixed by swapping one of the drives?
- Nacraile 10y agoThe limits are on the number of simultaneous failures. Data is safe provided that too many errors do not accumulate before they can be detected and corrected. This is fundamental fact: no real storage system can tolerate an unbounded number of simultaneous errors without an unbounded number of space for replicas. You can control the number of allowable simultaneous errors by tuning redundancy settings (the trade off is space efficiency vs. probability of data loss). It is straightforward to put in place an automated process to guarantee that errors are detected within some finite period of time.
- rsync 10y agoIf you are using ZFS, the flipped bit (or "bit rot") problem is completely solved. You need never give it another thought. You still need to worry about failing drives and about the integrity of your raidz arrays (or whatever), but that has nothing to do with the flipping bits. That being said, you can see statistics about error corrections (which should typically be near-zero) and if you see a lot of them it might be advanced warning of a drive dying. But the actual bit errors themselves would not be a problem and you would not need to take any action specifically related to them.