I'm looking forward to read about your experiences with different kinds of storage setups. zfs seems very complex, but it seems to be pretty much at the top when it comes to data integrity. btrfs is very close, but as I said, it's not complete. The reason I wrote this post is that there seems to be no robust solution to this. And eventually, preferably, hotswap the broken disk to a new one and sync. Keeping backups for important data is important, but it saves a lot of hazzle if your main data storage can fix corruptions while serving the file, or give you the uncorrupted data from some other disk. Incremental backups usually saves from those kind of disasters. So what kind of setups you guys use with your important data storage? Obviously backups, but corrupted data can lurk into backups too. Again the scrubbing is a separate process, not "online". Is this enough? I haven't dug deep enough.Īlso Linux mdraid under it doesn't do automatic error detection and serve you the uncorrupted data. I think lvm even supports shrinking of lv that has ext4 on it.īut as far as I know ext4 and xfs, both "only" checksum the metadata. So far ext4 and xfs have been my choice of filesystems. So I've finally settled to lvm handling my raid and logical volumes. zfs has licensing problem, and using it is more complex than btrfs. It's good, but not completely ready (and you can't put swapfile on a multidisk btrfs). These filesystems have better checksumming. As far as I know, those 520 sector drives are a rare find now days and the price is astronomical compared to regular hard drives.Įnter the new generation of filesystems: zfs, btrfs, bcachefs. A smart enough storage solution (filesystem, raid implementation or what have you) would then use the 8 extra bytes for parity/checksum data and really present the the disk to the rest of the OS as if it had 512 byte sectors. If I'm not mistaken it was more common back in the days for (enterprise) hard drives to have 520 byte sectors instead of 512. Too many storage setups rely on hard drive telling it has some corrupted bits. You'd need to manually issue scrub or whatever to find, and possibly correct, the bit rot. Most of the hard drives and RAID implementations don't care if some bit of your data is corrupted. Posted: Fri 9:43 am Post subject: You can't trust hard drives. I only use it for web development sometimes because my main browser ( qutebrowser, it's a great browser with keybindings) doesn't support extensions (yet).Gentoo Forums :: View topic - You can't trust hard drives. I know you might not be interested in anything chromium-based since this thread is about firefox, but qutebrowser is a great solution for anybody looking for vimium/pentadactyl-like experience. Vieb and qute are based on chromium and are keyboard controled, agregore it's lighter in his revision 2 so you know, and finally falkon it's a web browser based in the qtweb engine which is a little bit heavier and I prefer his old version called qupzilla this one it's the link to vieb, this one to qute browser which is based o qt web engine too for agregore this one is the link and finally this one is the link.Ī bug I opened 15 years ago was closed 4 hours ago I haven't spent any time tweaking the threshold values, but maybe some tweaking would make it even better. Will it work with Qutebrowser? It uses QtWebEngine which is based on Chromium. I made a browser extension that spoofs your location data to match your IP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |