Comment Re:Why "Unfortuantely"? (Score 1) 830
I think it says that because he doesn't have a realistic shot at the candidacy.
I think it says that because he doesn't have a realistic shot at the candidacy.
Now that his series from the 90s is on Netflix, I noticed that he used Metric for all his measurements. Moving metric would eventually cut the number of wrenches/sockets I need in half and require fewer trips to the toolbox (@$%$# metric....#$$# nope imperial...)
Slashdot still doesn't offer https support.
If you have an opinion (especially "that's stupid!"), be sure to back it up with facts before you open your mouth.
It's going to be good for lawyers and shareholders. But yeah, that's about it.
I understand that you think "we would respond differently if this were RAID 5" is a sign of hypocrisy or something. But it's not really that.
Yes it is, and that's a very short sighted approach. I hope you're not a developer.
I was really just throwing out drives and times. I had name-brand systems that were in a RAID 0 to consolidate two drives (the drive contents were expendable since this was just scratch space) and they ran for many years with few failures.
I suspect not, since his point seemed to be that you shouldn't be using RAID 0 for data that you care about anyway.
I meant, what if there was a bug in the RAID 5 code that caused similar corruption? This is equivalent (almost) to blaming the victim. Yes, you did risky behavior, but the problem wasn't caused because of the risky behavior.
You can't remove drives from a ZFS pool - once they're in (even if you have free space on other drives), the number of drives can't go down. Which really bothers me. With LVM you can evacuate data off of drives and shrink the pv. LVM in itself isn't a filesystem, but if you think of a pool as an LVM volume the functionality is somewhat similar.
RAID 0 is only as unstable as its least stable component. In this case it's most likely a drive failure, and most drives are fairly long MTBFs. The chances of a disk failure increase as a function of time and number of drives deployed. A two-drive RAID 0 will be more stable than a five-drive RAID 0 which will be more stable than a 10 drive RAID 0 that's three years old. In the case of higher RAID levels, you can remove a single (or multiple) drive failure as the point of failure. In this case, the point of failure is the kernel, so it's perfectly legitimate to consider this a really bad problem. Would you say the same thing if the bug affected RAID 1 or RAID 5?
I have 4 drives in a RAID 10, so two RAID 1 arrays of two drives each combined together in a RAID 0. I did it mostly because I can add new drive at any time and just chain them onto the RAID 0.
The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate.
Trying to prove a negative? And you're wondering why I'm rolling my eyes at you?
And you know this from?..
From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it. If you want to spittle on about other things, find someone else who is interested.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that.
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
