From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about providing data block checksumming for ext4
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:07:22 -0500
Message-ID: <20141127000722.GA310@redhat.com>
References: <20141103233308.GA27842@thunk.org>
 <20141126234706.GN10043@birch.djwong.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141126234706.GN10043@birch.djwong.org>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at  6:47pm -0500,
Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:

> Sigh...
> 
> Well, I wrote up a preliminary version of dm-checksum and then
> realized that I've pretty much just built a crappier version of
> dm-dedupe, but without the dedupe part.  Given that it stores
> checksums in a btree which claims to be robust through failures and
> gives us automatic deduplication, I wonder if it we could achieve our
> aims by modifying dm-dedupe to verify the checksums on the read path?
> 
> I guess it would be interesting to see how bad the performance hit is
> with the online dedupe part enabled or disabled.  dm-dedupe v2 went
> out on the mailing list last August, which I missed. :(
> 
> Unless... there's a specific reason nobody mentioned dm-dedupe here?

As you may have seen in the dm-dedup thread, we need to actively
review/test that target (if your initial review focus is on extending it
to _optionally_ verify the checksums on the read path then so be it).

See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-November/msg00114.html
Specifically, the git branch that builds on v2 based on my initial
review of v2:

git://git.fsl.cs.stonybrook.edu/scm/git/linux-dmdedup
branch: dm-dedup-devel

Your help on getting dm-dedup upstream would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
Mike