> If you are getting corrupt files that's not the filesystem's fault, it's most likely a problem with the hardware.
I don't think the implication is that the fs is at fault for the corruption - it's just at fault for failing to detect it. Hardware problems tend toward certainty over long enough time scales - doesn't it make sense to defend against it given the relatively minimal cost of doing so?
> Checksums at the FS level are very rare; the majority of the ones in use don't have them .. and yet they function perfectly fine.
No, they too allow data to silently become corrupt in face of imperfectly functioning hardware. Sure, it normally doesn't happen, but it's certainly not rare enough to warrant ignoring if your data is in any way valuable to you.
I don't think the implication is that the fs is at fault for the corruption - it's just at fault for failing to detect it. Hardware problems tend toward certainty over long enough time scales - doesn't it make sense to defend against it given the relatively minimal cost of doing so?
> Checksums at the FS level are very rare; the majority of the ones in use don't have them .. and yet they function perfectly fine.
No, they too allow data to silently become corrupt in face of imperfectly functioning hardware. Sure, it normally doesn't happen, but it's certainly not rare enough to warrant ignoring if your data is in any way valuable to you.