[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] 64 bit scsi read/write
- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips bonn-fries net>
- To: "Ken Hirsch" <kenhirsch myself com>,"Chris Wedgwood" <cw f00f org>, "John Alvord" <jalvo mbay net>
- Cc: "Alan Cox" <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>,"Andrew Morton" <andrewm uow edu au>,"Andreas Dilger" <adilger turbolinux com>,"Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan cs uml edu>,"Ben LaHaise" <bcrl redhat com>,"Ragnar Kjxrstad" <kernel ragnark vestdata no>,<linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, <linux-kernel vger kernel org>,<mike bigstorage com>, <kevin bigstorage com>,<linux-lvm sistina com>
- Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] 64 bit scsi read/write
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:14:21 +0200
On Sunday 15 July 2001 15:16, Ken Hirsch wrote:
> Chris Wedgwood <cw f00f org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:05:36PM -0700, John Alvord wrote:
> > >
> > > In the IBM solution to this (1977-78, VM/CMS) the critical data
> > > was written at the begining and the end of the block. If the two
> > > data items didn't match then the block was rejected.
> >
> > Neat.
> >
> > Simple and effective. Presumably you can also checksum the block,
> > and check that.
>
> The first technique is not sufficient with modern disk controllers,
> which may reorder sector writes within a block. A checksum,
> especially a robust CRC32, is sufficient, but rather expensive.
As somebody else pointed out, not if you don't have to compute it on
every block, as with journalling or atomic commit.
> Mohan has a clever technique that is computationally trivial and only
> uses one bit per sector:
> http://www.almaden.ibm.com/u/mohan/ICDE95.pdf
>
> Unfortunately, it's also patented:
> http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05418940__
Fortunately, it's clunky and unappealing compared to the simple
checksum method, applied only to those blocks that define consistency
points. I don't think this is patented. I'd be disturbed if it was,
since it's obvious.
> Perhaps IBM will clarify their position with respect to free software
> and patents in the upcoming conference.
Wouldn't that be nice. Imagine, IBM comes out and says, we admit it,
patents are a net burden on everybody, even us - from now on, we use
them only against those who use them against us, and we'll put that
in writing. Right.
--
Daniel
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]